If mutation consistently warns you, that you're *not* going to get an adaptation: you need to change

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Regarding matter, it's all evidence.

No, you're claiming it's evidence, but claiming it's evidence doesn't make it evidence.

 

[SkyWriting]

No. Kinetic energy, gravitational potential energy, heat energy, elastic energy, chemical energy, atomic bond energy, and so-on, are not 'solid'. When matter is 'converted to energy' by, for example, fission or fusion, it's actually converted to other forms of the energy of stuff - particles with high kinetic energy, photons with high frequencies, etc. Ultimately, stuff is made of quantum fields, and the energy of stuff is the energy of quantum fields in different states.

As I've said elsewhere, an analogy might be financial value - it comes in many forms and can be converted from one form to another, but doesn't exist in its own right.

We all know energy exists in it's own right.
My teacher told me so.

And it's available locally:

 

[SkyWriting]

No. Kinetic energy, gravitational potential energy, heat energy, elastic energy, chemical energy, atomic bond energy, and so-on, are not 'solid'.

Nobody claimed that energy was a solid. But "solids" are composed of energy particles.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

We all know energy exists in it's own right.
My teacher told me so.

Tsk... Just because energy is conserved, doesn't mean it exists in its own right. Financial value isn't conserved, but in principle, it could be. That wouldn't cause it to exist in its own right.

As it happens, energy is only conserved under time-translation symmetry (by Noether's theorem), so in a universe of General Relativity, it's more a local approximation than a fundamental law.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Nobody claimed that energy was a solid. But "solids" are composed of energy particles.

Well, you said "... energy has various properties which render it "solid".", and I say that's incorrect.

Solids are not composed of energy particles.

 

[SkyWriting]

There is no such thing as 'pure' energy - it's a property that things have by reason of their composition and context, it has no independent existence.

There are no things. Only energy.

 

[SkyWriting]

Solids are not composed of energy particles.

Solids are composed of energy particles.

E = mc2

 

[SkyWriting]

Well, you said "... energy has various properties which render it "solid".", and I say that's incorrect. Solids are not composed of energy particles.

So energy and matter are really the same thing. Completely interchangeable.
How are Energy and Matter the Same? - Universe Today

 

[Shemjaza]

A few too many beers can wipe out nearly all the organisms in your colon and give you the runs.
Long term, life recovers and your poop becomes solid again.
You are winning, or you are learning.

You are demonstrating cause and effect, not design.

I someone a few too many beers, it's because they're trying to trigger a neurological reaction, trying to stave off the symptoms of a physical addiction or mistakenly drinking them to quench feelings of thirst... not as a deliberate decision to cull gut bacteria.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Solids are composed of energy particles.

E = mc2

No; that specifies a correspondence or equivalence relation, not an identity relation.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So energy and matter are really the same thing. Completely interchangeable.
How are Energy and Matter the Same? - Universe Today

That's either pop-sci hyperbole or sloppy description. Einstein's formula describes the equivalence between mass (not matter) and energy (the conserved property). The energy of mass and other forms of energy are inter-convertible, they are not the same thing.

 

[SkyWriting]

That's either pop-sci hyperbole or sloppy description. Einstein's formula describes the equivalence between mass (not matter) and energy (the conserved property). The energy of mass and other forms of energy are inter-convertible, they are not the same thing.

No citations? That's a shame. You really should have researched it first.

"Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared." On the most basic level, the equation says that energy and mass (matter) are interchangeable; they are different forms of the same thing. Under the right conditions, energy can become mass, and vice versa.

Einstein's Big Idea | Library Resource Kit: E = mc2 Explained


Newest Questions
Einstein's great realization (or one of several !) was that energy and mass are the same thing, just (sometimes) measured in different units. There is no conversion involved (unless you mean a conversion of units). The equivalence is made transparent in particle physics where the electron volt is both a unit of energy and a unit of mass.

"Mass and energy can be seen as two names (and two measurement units) for the same underlying, conserved physical quantity" - Wikipedia Mass-energy equivalence


Are Mass and Energy the same thing? | Physics Forums
www.physicsforums.com › threads › are-mass-an...

Jul 27, 2014 · 25 posts
Yes they are the same. Mass and energy are equivalent, and you can look up plenty of articles online about mass-energy equivalency.

 

[SkyWriting]

No; that specifies a correspondence or equivalence relation, not an identity relation.

I have sources:
Mass-Energy Equivalence - Physics Video by Brightstorm
www.brightstorm.com › Physics › Nuclear Physics
Mass-energy equivalence states that mass is concentrated energy.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No citations? That's a shame. You really should have researched it first.

"Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared." On the most basic level, the equation says that energy and mass (matter) are interchangeable; they are different forms of the same thing. Under the right conditions, energy can become mass, and vice versa.

Einstein's Big Idea | Library Resource Kit: E = mc2 Explained


Newest Questions
Einstein's great realization (or one of several !) was that energy and mass are the same thing, just (sometimes) measured in different units. There is no conversion involved (unless you mean a conversion of units). The equivalence is made transparent in particle physics where the electron volt is both a unit of energy and a unit of mass.

"Mass and energy can be seen as two names (and two measurement units) for the same underlying, conserved physical quantity" - Wikipedia Mass-energy equivalence


Are Mass and Energy the same thing? | Physics Forums
www.physicsforums.com › threads › are-mass-an...

Jul 27, 2014 · 25 posts
Yes they are the same. Mass and energy are equivalent, and you can look up plenty of articles online about mass-energy equivalency.

'Equivalent' does not mean 'the same', as already pointed out.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I have sources:
Mass-Energy Equivalence - Physics Video by Brightstorm
www.brightstorm.com › Physics › Nuclear Physics
Mass-energy equivalence states that mass is concentrated energy.

That's a simplification. The energy of mass can be converted to other forms of energy. Energy is not a thing, it's a conserved equivalence relation. For example, having more potential energy is not the same as having more mass.

 

[SkyWriting]

That's a simplification. The energy of mass can be converted to other forms of energy. Energy is not a thing, it's a conserved equivalence relation. For example, having more potential energy is not the same as having more mass.

Still no sources for your musings? Just formulating physics on the fly?

 

[Gottservant]

I like that you guys are engaging with the topic at hand, but its seems like you are arguing about "duality" - that energy can both change and be the same.

The point I am trying to make, is that even before change or staying the same, mutation gives you a warning that adaptation might not be possible - if the link between the mutation and the adaptation has become too tenuous.

As long as there are other adaptations that are more likely, specifically which mutations are related becomes irrelevant.

If you are looking at cars and you see a humvee, you see that it has power, you don't then choose a hatchback and hope that it will become a humvee.

 

[SkyWriting]

That's a simplification. The energy of mass can be converted to other forms of energy. Energy is not a thing, it's a conserved equivalence relation. For example, having more potential energy is not the same as having more mass.

 

[SkyWriting]

That's a simplification. The energy of mass can be converted to other forms of energy. Energy is not a thing, it's a conserved equivalence relation. For example, having more potential energy is not the same as having more mass.

Is mass another form of energy?
In 1905, Einstein discovered the famous equation: E=mc^2, which means that the rest mass of a particle is some kind of energy. This energy is generally referred to as "rest energy", since the particle is believed to be at rest. ... The "mass" is simply the kinetic energy associated with this special kind of motion.
https://aklectures.com/lecture/relativistic-momentum-and-rest-mass-energy/rest-mass-energy

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Still no sources for your musings? Just formulating physics on the fly?

It's basic physics. Matter is made up of fermions - excitations of fermion quantum fields. As best we know, quantum fields are fundamental. In order to create particles (field excitations) quantum fields must interact, the excitations in one field causing excitations in another. If the excitation is sufficiently large (the relevant quantum), it will persist as what we can observe as a particle. We call the size of an excitation its energy, and a particle is an excitation of a particular size - called a quantum of energy.

The total level of excitations in the quantum fields is constant and can be quantified, so for descriptive and mathematical convenience we give a name to the equivalence and say that energy is exchanged in the interactions.

By analogy, if I am angry and interact with someone else so that they too become angry, you might say that my anger has been transferred to them. But anger is an abstraction, a description of the state of an individual, not a thing in its own right. Energy is a description of the state of a system, not a thing in its own right.

This is why I think reifying energy is a mistake - the same kind of mistake as phlogiston and dualism. It's a convenient abstraction to describe the state of systems and what happens when they interact.